Thursday, February 28, 2013

The answer would require a lot more paper than this post has allocated. What we can say is this: "Our people have been compromised." Most don't realize it. This is where the education process must begin.

Americans are a generous people. We are a bit naive. That's part of our charm. Have you talked to any Brits lately? Somewhat cynical, aren't they! How about about the French? You can definitely hear about out mistakes and problems if the conversation lasts more than ten minutes!

Russians?

Here's a little surprise. Russian people actually like American people. A lot! In fact, they copy us. Our government? Now that's a different question!

Throughout the years, it has become fashionable to embrace all things from France, England, Italy and anything that is Western European. You hear mostly things that are digested by the average naive American as "good, well okay, but it would still make for a nice second honeymoon vacation!"

Russia? NYET! Most of what you hear is not promising. In fact, it almost sounds belligerent. Is that honestly the case?

Actually, it's somewhat complicated. The American people are so shielded by the mainstream media from what "is, is" that they are clueless. Most don't care! For the ones that do, it's a "labyrinth of nothing!"

Here's the "long and short" on it!

Russia is arguably one of the most "homophobic" countries in the world. Gay people are in closets. Good, bad, indifferent, that's the way it is! No questions asked!

Our state department, as well as our media is likely one-third or more gay. The compound in Libya? Check the sexual orientation of the people who were employed there. In fact, check the sexual orientation of the U.S. Secretary of State!

Are we politically correct? Or, are we mad? Does the shoe fit? If it does, "sorry about your luck!"

For our country to fix it's ails, we must begin an introspection. It may not be pretty! In fact, it may lead to some awful revelations. But, "what is, is!"

America may have been co-oped, if not "hi-jacked" by forces no where close to our ideals, standards and moral values. Can we launch a reconnaissance campaign? Yes. And we need to! Soon! This is about the soul of our country. What we have are those attempting to "steal" our forefathers revolution.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Republicans and conservatives have argued steadily for three years regarding the fallacies of "Obamacare." We have heard every logical reason why it should be scrapped. We have even heard the word "replacement." Yet, the specifics of "replacement" remain murky.

Maybe it's because there are no specifics when it comes to replacing 'Obamacare." Yes, some good ideas, namely,"Tort Reform" have come up. Allowing Insurance companies to cross state lines is not new. Most Americans like both ideas. But, then what?

Obamacare has some good points to it. Even Republicans will admit that "pre-existing"conditions have been a reason for Insurance companies to deny coverage to millions of Americans. There is bi-partisan support for allowing children to stay on their parent plan until age 26. So why is the President's plan so wrong, in the eyes of most?

Identifying all of the positives and negatives of Obamacare is not the subject of this post. Many opponents conclude two things, however. (a) It does not reduce the cost of health care, if anything, it increases it. (b) It may compromise the overall quality of health care in America.

In short, Obamacare is a loser! Not Universal Health care, mind you! Obamacare! So what can we offer as the better alternative?

Try this on for size...

We would implement two tiny taxes. One would be administered at the state level, the other on the federal level. Let's start with the latter.

A "one-half of one cent" national "CAT" tax would be implemented. Monies would go into a fund that would be activated only in the event of a large insurance claim.Here are the highlights:
(a) The establishment of a national catastrophic pool that would kick in only when the claim reached $10,000. At that point it would pay 80%. When the claim reached $50,000, the amount paid would be 85%. At $100,000 it would cap at 90%.
(b) Nothing could touch this pool, including insurance claims that were less than $10,000/

On the state level, a "one-fourth of one percent payroll tax" would be implemented. It would also go into effect when the claim hit $10,000 and would split costs with the federal pool.

Between these two sources, there would be sufficient funds to pay for catastrophic events. And, if implemented, the concern with "no available insurance for those with pre-existing conditions" would go away.

The compromise would include "tort reform," preferably "loser pays tort reform" as was implemented in Texas. The rest of the package would include allowing insurance companies to cross state line.

The end result: Much, MUCH lower insurance premiums for the American people. Not to mention, more options. If given a choice, I have no doubt that the American people would want this over Obamacare!

Bi-partisan support would be a given. This plan is as good as the President's is "awful."

So why haven't we already done something like this? Maybe it's because it's too easy! The big insurance companies wouldn't like it. We have 1300 insurance companies nationwide. If they were all allowed to sell in 50 states, it would create competition nightmares for Humana, Blue Cross and the "big boys."

Those seeking to use Obamacare as a catalyst for implementing more big government control wouldn't embrace it.

Obamacare is big government. It is Socialism. This plan brings about competition. When there is competition, prices go down. Or, as Florida Senator, Marco Rubio put it, "what if could buy your car insurance from only three different carriers? Can you imagine what your premiums would look like?"

It goes back to the question: "Is not the government there to serve the people?

The long anticipated split between Tea Party and Establishment is upon the Republicans.

Not that it's a surprise. When the GOP decided that Mitt Romney would be the nominee, it permanently mined it's return route. Inspite of protests and warnings of a revolt, Establishment placed everything on a November victory. This one dimensional thinking concluded that "with Obama's defeat, the contention would die."

They didn't count on Romney losing. In fact, even party stalwarts such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris predicted a landslide. Post election shock turned to blaming the Tea Party for bad candidates who lost winnable Senate seats. More specifically, Missouri and Indiana. Never mind that the Republicans also lost Virginia, Montana and North Dakota with Establishment candidates.

The focus turned to John Boehner and the House. Tea Party Nation described them as "waiving the white flag of surrender." Many Tea Party Congressmen were replaced on key committees.

Then Karl Rove came out with his plan.

In fairness, the Tea Party may be done. It's rise was based on returning fiscal sanity to Washington, D.C. There were high watermarks, most notably the 2010 midterms. However, what began as a drive to curb reckless spending became a forum for social issues. Todd Akin and Richard Mourdoch clearly blew their Senate races with non-fiscal conservative blunders. It lent credence to Karl Rove's position.

Can the original argument return?

Not likely. Through the past four years America has seen a widening divide in the party. It has exposed the basic ideological contrasts between different kinds of conservatives. We have the social conservatives. We have fiscal conservatives. We have those who call themselves conservatives, who may be nothing more than imposter's. Spearheading the entire opposition movement are self serving, career politicians.

Try to imagine a building with major structural damage, beginning with a cracked foundation. While the exterior can be made to look good, the problem rests with the unseen. Those who know the building conclude that to continue throwing money at it for repairs is fallacy.

The Republican Party has lost credibility with the very people who put it over the top, in 1980, 1984, 1988, 2000 and 2004. It has resisted change.,especially during the past ten years. Some are slowly coming to the realization that it's finally time to broaden the tent. It may be too little, too late!

Democrats, while proffering a questionable economic direction, disorganized foreign policy positions and a growing culture of corruption are still united. They have an agenda. And they have dedicated disciples to carry it out. Even though the majority of Americans are dissatisfied with them, they are hanging on only due to the division across the aisle.

Are we past the point of no return?

Perhaps. If we stay on the current horse, probably. However, if we come to the conclusion that "conservatism begins and ends with a strict constructionist view of the constitution," the cleansing can begin.